Louisiana Passes Violent Games Bill

GameDaily is reporting that the Louisiana House has passed a violent games bill, aping similar legislation from across the country. From the article: "The bill would allow a judge to determine if a video game is 'patently offensive to prevailing standards' and if it's appealing 'to the minor's morbid interest in violence.' If the title meets these "criteria" the game could be ordered to be pulled from store shelves. Furthermore, someone found guilty of selling one of these games would face fines of between $100 and $2,000, and a prison term of up to one year. According to the Associated Press, even though several members of the House questioned whether the bill would be in violation of the First Amendment, none felt they should vote against the measure."

Gratz.

[GundamFan]

You just made a big chunk of the population criminals, let me know how that turns out.

so...

[Abstract_Me]

so you can have a real gun... just not a virtual one.. at least they have their constitutional priorities in line.

mod me down Im use to it.

So the seller can't know it's 'illegal' beforehand

[Jimmy King]

Bah, TFA not wanting to load for me. What I get from this, though, is that a retailer can be taken to court AFTER a sale for selling a game to a minor and then if the judge decides that the game is indecent and trying to appeal to minors, the store will be punished and the game pulled from shelves? How is the store to know this before selling the game to be able to be taken to court for it? Is the lousiana state government going to review all games themselves before allowing them to be sold in the state? I've got to figure out how to get in on this. You guys do something, after you do it I'll tell you if it was legal or not and sue you and throw you in jail if it wasn't. Sound like a good deal?

Bravery

[benjjj]

"Even though several members of the House questioned whether the bill would be in violation of the First Amendment, none felt they should vote against the measure."

"These decisions should be left to the legislature, the representatives of the people, not the courts."
Legislators: "I'm not touching that. Let the courts decide."

To Louisiana politicians

[zephc]

Don't you asshats have a city to rebuild? Why the fuck are you wasting your constituent's money on this?

I'm not too concerned about this

[mythandros]

It just means that if you don't have a drivers license that states you're over 18, you don't get to buy the game. If you're a minor and you have the game, it's because mommy and daddy bought the game for you. What's wrong with making parent's take more of an interest in what their children experience?

What's that? Your kid brought a gun to school and executed his classmates? You say that his violent video games made him do it*? Well then, who bought him the video game?

* - I find this notion laughable, by the way

Re:Gratz.

[mythandros]

They'll only be criminals if stores don't start carding minors like they do for cigarettes and booze and guns and... I mean, if parents are complaining that games make their children violent what's wrong with forcing parents to take responsibility for what their children watch?

Re:To Louisiana politicians

[drinkypoo]

Actually, they have a coastline to rebuild, doing so would make a much bigger difference in minimizing the future destruction (the forecast is that that part of the country is going to get owned by ma nature again) than anything else they could do. That's not happening either, of course.

We have them now

[voice_of_all_reason]

even though several members of the House questioned whether the bill would be in violation of the First Amendment, none felt they should vote against the measure

In summation:

-they know a law already prohibits this
-they decided to approve it anyway

Therefore, every member of the legislature that voted for this bill has committed a crime. I assume the courts will be as swift in getting the wheels of justice spinning as they are for the local meth dealer or pot farmer.

Re:Bravery

[timon]

On the plus side, when the courts throw out the law as unconstitutional, the politicians get to blame "activist judges" for thwarting the "will of the people." Win-win!

Once Again...

[Greyfox]

A state legislature passes a bill, knowing full well that it won't survive a court challenge. They wasted your tax dollars coming up with the thing. They wasted your tax dollars getting it passed. And they'll waste your tax dollars defending it in court. If I lived in Louisana I'd be pretty pissed off about that. Maybe you guys should get a voter referendum going to take all the money wasted on such laws out of the salaries of the legislators instead of out of the general funds of the state. Isn't Louisana pretty cash-strapped anyway? I seem to recall some whining about them not having enough money recently...

Vague

[Doomstalk]

The bill would allow a judge to determine if a video game is 'patently offensive to prevailing standards' and if it's appealing 'to the minor's morbid interest in violence.'

I'm not sure if they could be any more vague. I mean, given the right conditions, you could argue this about just about any game. I recall many an hour in wholesome puzzle games like Lemmings and The Incredible Machine inventing horrible things to do to the creatures under my control. Does that count as morbid violence?

This is GOOD stuff

[stlhawkeye]

We need states to enact this kind of thing. The states, not the federal government. When one state does this, consumers on the borders will flee to adjoining states to buy video games. If it's a truly horrible piece of legislation, the market will bear this out and the retail outlets will raise hell. The feedback loop between a free market and a democracy will show itself one way or another. It could be that the residents of Louisiana overall want exactly this kind of thing, they should have it. This is not a clear violation of free speech, but it's a worthy law to challenge it. What we want now, is a legal challenge to this law. A case will be decided using this law by the lower courts, and we'll get an appelate court decision. At this point, we'll know what this law really means. Don't worry, gamers and liberterians. The passage of these kinds of laws is vital to ensuring that rights are preserved in a common law judisdiction.

Re:Obsolutly fantastic

[stlhawkeye]

Haha! Stupid Republicans.

Except the Louisiana state legislature is 64% Democrats in the state House and 61% Democrats in the state Senate and a Democratic governer. Whoops. Oh well. The important thing is to always blame Republicans for restricting people's personal and economic freedom, no matter whose fault it really is. Holding the guilty accountable isn't the point. The point is blasting people we find politically distasteful.

Crusade onward, my good man! Get those Republicans!

Re:Gratz.

[Lave]

Hang on, I'm confused:

"to the minor's morbid interest in violence." If the title meets these "criteria" the game could be ordered to be pulled from store shelves.

So they've incriminated most of the game playing populace and pulling games completely instead of just rating games inappropriate for minors? They may as well have mass burningd of the games in the street.

This is a perfect example of generation X. Like Rap, Rock and Roll, Cinema those who were born before it, don't understand it and fear it - so try and ban it. It's only when those people die off that the medium can be excepted as an art form.

Just give the game an 18 certificate (or a restricted or whatever you use in the US for movies) and move on. It's so simple it's untrue.

Re:Gratz.

[plague3106]

There's nothing wrong with forcing parents to take responsiblitly in screening what their children watch. There is something wrong with forcing the stores and game companies to do the parents job.

Re:Gratz.

[mythandros]

This doesn't burden the game companies at all. It's only an irritation to the stores that sell the games because now they have to card anyone who looks younger than 30. It's a small irritation, but an irritation none the less. To be honest, I'd rather see parents that aren't interested in actually parenting, forced to parent.

Re:We have them now

[orgelspieler]

I love how Rep. Martiny (R) says "that's for the courts to decide." He's probably one of the same guys complaining about "activist judges." What a prick. Maybe the LA state congress doesn't have to swear an oath to uphold the state and federal constitutions, but if they do, this guy must not have been paying attention. Generally upholding the Constitution doesn't mean specifically writing laws that he suspects are unconstitutional but decides "that ain't my job; let them thar judges figger it out." This is infuriating. I'm sure there're similar laws in the works for all the other states, too.